“In the case of an agreement of sale entered into prior to the passing of the Transfer of Property Act, it was the accepted doctrine in India that the agreement created an interest in the land itself in favour of the purchaser. For instance, in Fati Chand Sahu v. Lilambar Singh Das, (1871) 9 Beng.LR. 433 (PC), a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale was dismissed on the ground that the agreement, which was held to create an interest in the land, was not registered under S.17, Cl.(2) of the Indian Registration Act of 1866. Following this principle, Mr.Markby,J in Tripoota Soonduree v. Juggur Nath Dutt, (1874) 24 Suth.W.R.321, expressed the opinion that a covenant for pre-emption contained in a deed of partition, which was unlimited in point of time, was not enforceable in law. The same view was taken by Baker,J in Allibhai Mahomed v. Dada Alli Isap, AIR 1931 Bom. 578, where the option of purchase was contained in a contract entered into before the passing of the Transfer of Property Act. The decision of the Judicial Committee in Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. Bal Chand, 48 Ind. App. 376 : (AIR 1922 P.C. 165), was also a decision relating to a contract of the year 1872. In that case, the proprietor of a hill entered into an agreement with a society of Jains that, if the latter would require a site thereon for the erection of a temple, he and his heirs would grant the site free of cost. The proprietor afterwards alienated the hill. The society, through their representatives, sued the alienees for possession of a site defined by boundaries, alleging notice to the proprietor requiring that site and that they had taken possession, but been dispossessed. It was held by the Judicial Committee was of the opinion that the agreement
